What happened in the House of Commons tonight?

[Bookridden]

I'm struggling to understand what is going on and would be grateful is someone can explain to me in simple terms.

Why were Labour worried about the safety of MPs?

Why were the SNP unhappy?

Why were the Tories unhappy?

What's likely to happen next?

Are MPs who don't take a Pro-Palestinian stance really putting their lives at risk?

MPs have constituents who talk to them, write to them, who voted for them. Surely that must be something that they take into account which maybe is why they rebelled.

Why is a rebellion desirable if a compromise can be reached? Surely the problem in the ME is the inability to compromise?

In their own way all the parties were seeking to divide and cause wedges. They should all be ashamed. One way or another the speaker was going to be in the wrong.

Parties, MPs and others have every right to draw the speakers attention to things that put members safety at risk.

It's not accurate. Sir Lesley, lol.

Yes I agree Dowager. However, I think the reference in the SNP motion to 'Collective punishment' would suggest that Israel in breach of international law.

Starmer can’t go to the speaker each time he has a fracture in his party he can’t deal with

He shouldn’t have this time and it’s likely to lose Hoyle his job due to no confidence

To quote John Crace, "Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s."

I don't see how any politicians, from any party, can think they behaved appropriately last night. So unedifying.

Slightly off topic but this is a brilliant Storyville about the history of Israel that is well worth watching. Might be uncomfortable watching for some but it's important and well made.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001q7qz/storyville-blue-box

stopped one step shy of accusing Israel of war crimes by using the term 'collective punishment'?

Collective punishment is a war crime.

Also I don't know who to vote for in the next election. Was a green party member but they have descended into madness and ideology. Don't trust tory (obviously) or labour. Might be stuck voting for Plaid Cymru... totally unrepresented. Would have voted for Corbyn probably, if they hadn't had such a campaign against him in his own party and across all tory press at the time.

Absolutely this. It was an absolutely disgusting display from every party. It’s very interesting to read this thread and watch party loyalty play out with scant regard for the facts.

The calibre, intelligence and integrity of many MPs is pretty poor these days. I probably won't vote. Living in Wales it'll be same old anyway

I’m very confused by all the people going on about how divided Labour are. They have a problem on this issue, granted - but the Tories are all over the place on all the issues, with distinct factions that Sunak can’t even begin to unite or control. Anyone trying to use this to suggest Labour infighting is as bad as or worse than the Tories is really being very dishonest.

You don’t have to be a Hamas supporter to think it’s a bit unwise to formally accuse Israel of war crimes when you are going to have to work with them in the fairly near future…

.

That’s a strange reading of the situation. Why do you think Labour perverted the process and not any other party?

Of course the Tories are split on matters. But that’s got nothing to do with Labour’s gobsmacking undermining of procedure on this issue to avoid their own embarrassment and avoid showing the nastiness of many of its MPs towards Israel, as being the Jewish homeland.

Tories all over this thread - who even knew they had so many fans left. Or social media managers.

Then their MPs should have abstained.

Speaker, who is a nice bloke, took it on board and amended the question to be voted on. He watered it down

No. He put forward amendments to the motion so the House could vote on the whether or not to accept the amended wording. He doesn't draft the motions or amendments to motions himself.

@TheDowagerDoughnut this from the BBC sums things up quite well:

Was SNP motion designed to put Labour in tough spot?
Harry Farley, Political correspondent

The SNP deny they were playing party politics with such a sensitive issue like yesterday's ceasefire vote. When I spoke to Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, last night he said they had written the motion to be as simple as possible and had long called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

But Labour sources describe the SNP motion as “one-sided”. These sources point to the fact it did not condemn Hamas, did not recognise the need for Hamas to stop the violence as well as Israel and it included reference to the “collective punishment” of Palestinian people.

That is why Labour argued MPs needed a chance to vote for their motion, which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” but did not make reference to “collective punishment”. It also condemned Hamas, saying “Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”.

If Labour’s amendment had not been selected, like it was, MPs would have just had a choice between the SNPs call for an “immediate ceasefire” and the government’s language of a “humanitarian pause” - but not yet a ceasefire.
^^
Given that choice, many Labour MPs would've been tempted to rebel against their own party and back the SNP.

That is why some Conservative and SNP MPs are accusing the Speaker of allowing Labour to avoid a rebellion.

Jeez. Had the Tories done this the MN branch of the Labour Party would have got this to three full threads by now.

And Labour not here at all then

Are you the Labour social media manager?

I’m saying lots of people are going ‘ooo Labour are horribly split and a Labour government would be chais’ while totally ignoring the many, many splits in the current Tory government.
I wonder why they are doing that?

that's a good point actually

Er because Hoyle is likely to lose his job over Starmer avoiding a rebellion

It’s the topic of the thread

None of them covered themselves in glory.